Quadro FX 4000 vs Radeon R7 350
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 350 with Quadro FX 4000, including specs and performance data.
R7 350 outperforms FX 4000 by a whopping 2050% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 673 | 1433 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.22 | 0.13 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | NV40 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 July 2016 (9 years ago) | 1 April 2004 (22 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 375 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 222 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 142 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 25.60 | 4.500 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8192 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 12 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | AGP 8x |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x Molex |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 32 GB/s |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.16 | 0.24 |
| Recency | 6 July 2016 | 1 April 2004 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 142 Watt |
R7 350 has a 2050% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364% more advanced lithography process, and 158% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 350 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 350 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 4000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
